Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1494 ..

MR STEFANIAK: I thank Mrs Littlewood for the question. Ms Reilly laughs. Well, you should, Ms Reilly, I suppose. I do not know that you have had a terribly good role in this. There was a quite good article in both the Canberra Times and the Chronicle. Mr Speaker, my department has briefed Ms Reilly extensively on the issue of rural housing in the ACT; but, on reading her statements in her latest release on 11 May this year, either she has not understood the issues or she chooses to be quite mischievous and run another scare campaign such as she did with the issue of people with disabilities in the Weston Creek area.

Let us get a few facts clear, Mr Speaker. Firstly, ACT Housing does not have leases on the land, but it does manage the houses. Secondly, the properties do require considerable maintenance, as many of them are very old and are of timber or cement sheeting. Thirdly, essential infrastructure requires major expenditure, such as the provision of water and sewerage services, roads and maintenance of the surrounding areas. There is also a low client demand - something that Ms Reilly might be interested in - for these properties due to their isolated location, the consequent lack of community services and the condition of the houses.

Let us also be clear, Mr Speaker, that we are not talking of minor funds here. There is probably around half a million dollars at issue here, and that is not a small amount when you take into consideration the very small size of this community. ACT Housing has only three families on the waiting list for rural properties and it is reluctant to put welfare clients in these situations because of higher personal costs and lack of access to services associated with living in rural housing. Maintenance of houses is funded internally by ACT Housing - I hope Ms Reilly realises that - and these rural houses are expensive to maintain. I really wonder, Ms Reilly, whether you expect the majority of public housing tenants who rely on welfare payments for income to fund the lifestyle choice of a minority.

However, Mr Speaker, as is indicated in the articles, ACT Housing does recognise the desire of tenants in rural areas to maintain their rural lifestyle and social connections and, therefore, we will make every effort to assist where possible. It is not our intention to move them out if a financially viable solution to the property and infrastructure issues can be found. That is something that I and other areas of government, such as Mr Humphries's area and Mr Kaine's area, are looking at. That is something we are considering. The consultation process - there have been a couple of meetings, I understand, so far - has gone very well.

Mr Kaine: Offer one of them to Ms Reilly. She might like to go and live there.

MR STEFANIAK: You never know, Mr Kaine; she might. This whole process is about core business for ACT Housing. ACT Housing is not in the rural housing or rural lifestyle business. I think we need to make that clear. It is only because ACT Housing feels an obligation to assist those tenants to find a workable financial and lifestyle decision that it continues to involve itself and work at identifying solutions, rather than just standing back and throwing uninformed rocks, as Ms Reilly seems to be doing on this issue and a number of other issues.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .